The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1887-07-13
New Trial Ordered .

IN the case of the people VS.. Eugene Laba-
die, which was taken to the supreme court
by Judge Hilton, the Judgment of the cir
cult court was set aside and new trial or
dered. The following is the opinion of the
court, which is self-explanatory and calls for
no comment, the court holding with the re-
spondent on each of the two points raised:
Judge Sherwood delivered the opinion of
the court:
1.-The respondent in this case was informed
against in the Van Buren, circuit court for
the crime of assault with intent to murder
Henry Houghtaling
The cause was tried at the last January
term and the respondent was convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment for the term of
four years.
Respondent brings error. But two excep-
tons were taken to the rulings of the court
and error is assigned thereon as follows:
First. The court erred in not sustaining
the challenge made to the array of the panel
of the jury who tried said cause"
Second. The court erred in not allowing
the attorneys for respondent but one hour
in which to address the jury on the facts
involved in the said cause and i'll limiting
their remarks to one-half hour each.''
1t appears from the records that, when the
cause was reached at the circuit, jury was
called and before being sworn, counsel for
the respondent challenged the array of Jurors
called, alleging large number of reasons
and among which it is alleged that the panel
of jurors when obtained, the names were
drawn from the box by the sheriff and not
by the clerk.
The record shows that this allegation is
true, and if SO. the challenge to the array was
well taken. The statute was not complied
with; il was the duty of the clerk to take the
names from the box. How. Stat. section
1867: Atkinson VS.. Morse. West Rep. 917.)
The statutes which establish the rule for
the drawing of Jurors leave no discretion in
the officers designated to conduct such draw
ing, but plainly indicate how the proceeding
shall be conducted. People VS.. Hall, As
Mich. 1885,.
Mr.. Justice Graves, speaking for this court
in the case of Colt VS.. Bingham, a. Mich,
400, while considering this section of the
statute and speaking of the duties of the
clerk on this occasion said: "The legisla-
ture have seen fit to provide expressly that
the clerk and no one else, shall handle the
box and draw therefrom in the presence of
the officer or officers attending and that one
of the attending officers shall keep minute
of such drawing. The law has apportioned
the duties with extreme care. The list and
box are under the sworn custody of the clerk.
His oath of Office applies to the duty of draw
ing, and the oaths of the others apply to the
duties assigned to them. and if they exchange
duties their respective oaths do not accom-
pany the exchange"
The law has so apportioned the duties of
the several officers who are to serve in Sc
curing the jury provided by the constitution
to try the respondent that the clerk must
take the names from the box, and no officer
or court can legally disregard this plain pro-
vision of the statute.
The other questions raised and discussed
by counsel, under the first assignment of err
ror. it is not necessary to discuss, as there is
no probability OF their recurrence on a new
trial.
The second assignment of error relates to
the limitation of time for the argument of